## Facts

- Shipper plaintiffs brought putative class claims alleging the four largest U.S. Class I railroads conspired to impose artificially high rail-freight fuel surcharges in violation of federal antitrust law.
- Multiple private suits filed in different federal districts were centralized for coordinated pretrial proceedings in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- The litigation was in the class-certification discovery stage, and the parties disputed the proper structure and sequencing of discovery.
- Defendants sought bifurcated discovery: an initial phase limited to class-certification issues, with merits discovery deferred unless a class was certified.
- Plaintiffs sought unitary discovery: full fact discovery on both class and merits issues before the class-certification decision.

## Issues

1. Whether the court should phase discovery by limiting the first stage to class-certification issues and postponing full merits discovery until after a Rule 23 ruling.
2. Whether overlap between class-certification and merits issues makes bifurcation inefficient or unfair in a complex antitrust MDL.

## Decision

- The court adopted defendants’ proposed phased discovery plan.
- Discovery was bifurcated, with an initial period focused on developing the record necessary to decide class certification under Rule 23.
- Full merits discovery was deferred until after the class-certification decision.
- The court reasoned that some overlap between class and merits discovery did not bar phasing, and that plaintiffs could seek targeted additional discovery if genuinely necessary to address Rule 23 requirements.

## Legal Principles

- District courts have broad discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 to manage complex litigation, including sequencing and limiting discovery.
- Rule 23 does not require completion of full merits discovery before class certification; parties must have a fair opportunity to develop the record on class issues.
- In antitrust class actions, overlap between class issues (including impact and damages proof relevant to predominance) and merits issues does not prevent phased discovery when discovery is tailored to what is reasonably needed for certification.
- Phased discovery may be justified to reduce cost and burden where merits discovery would be substantial and class certification may narrow or eliminate the need for extensive merits proceedings.

## Conclusion

The court ordered bifurcated discovery in the rail-freight fuel-surcharge antitrust MDL, requiring an initial, tailored round of class-certification discovery under Rule 23 and postponing full merits discovery to limit burden and expense while preserving plaintiffs’ ability to build an adequate certification record.


In re Rail Freight Surcharge Antitrust Litig., 258 F.R.D. 167 (D.D.C. 2009)